tobylane

Oh good, I like this sort of April Fools. Where you come up with a really good idea, then the joke is that it's not happening.

You tried not to be annoying, you objectively achieved that, but in everyone else's irrelevant opinion you didn't succeed? "There's this rule that would suggest I'm an asshole, but I'm the exception. Except when I have a cold, which makes my poor behaviour totally understandable, right??" I can believe you're a good person on P. When I was active on P and arguing on the forums I had some hostility on P from people who couldn't separate the two. I'm surprised that this tangent is being permitted Eehee?

Here? http://nerd.nu/maps/pve/#/2713/64/-2105/-2/0/0 The buildings on the right look amazing, like Wellspring (the best city ever). I see some of your work, I like to see that tree farm being made.

I see you are 100% a P player, I didn't know that before. What town are you in, what have you built and what are your plans to do next?

Yes to tebok, yes to Ridic, yes to keep using uservoices. Name the anons and have a discussion here about what their influence is and their unagreeable need to be anon. Keep the uservoices going, but I'd like to see the admins at least say that they could close something as not done - needs forum discussion.

Toxic as a simple word used to describe the negative behaviour is new, but the negative behaviour is very old. Judging from what I've read about the server history the negativity predates formal administration. I suggest taking those players out because it's a fix, however unideal it may be.

Is it critically wounded by the toxic players, or by the reaction to them? Either way it sounds like dealing with toxic players better is the fix. Taking toxic players out of the equation solves it even if we don't agree on which is wounding. UNP there is progress being made. You can't just ignore or dismiss what you don't like. We've seen this before, with the people arguing the same sort of things as you, S players who don't like the status quo. I'll call it something toxic people do even if isn't toxic itself.

Sorry by correctly I mean I was told it guesses. With something like an iron farm there's only four possible blocks the centre can be, so it guesses well. With a village the centre can be over more coords,

The villager thing doesn't work correctly on multiplayer and never has since the SP>MP thing about two years ago. I did run with this sort of mod set for a while, before simplifying it because the new launcher is annoying. I used to have mods like BetterSprinting, Autofish, Damage Indicators, Paine in the Glass and Schematica. Now it's just Optifine, Pop enchant tags, WECUI/worldeditwrapper and Voxelmap,

Err on the side of caution. Pick on someone new, let the cooldown end and then some, and rotate your victims.

Nerd.nu, (2015). The "Toxic" Debacle - Page 5 - Minecraft Discussion - Reddit Public Forums. [online] Available at: https://nerd.nu/forums/topic/3164-the-toxic-debacle/?p=25380 [Accessed 21 Mar. 2015]. Just helping anyone in the future get started on that 250 words for toxic article I mentioned earlier. Harvard style.

I believe the solution is to not take hits on your armour when you kill each other for fun. Take it off. I would like to see ad-hoc arenas excluded from this plugin, for the reasons Four says. For when you have the need to make perfect armour then use it up on friends.

Which one died? Perhaps the tangent had a limited life anyway. For instance this tangent I'm making may die soon. I've been visited by so many wish-granting faries asking me to make sure it dies. Maybe by the time tangents get going like this has, it's because there's nothing left to discuss on the original topic.

In the real world, with so many outside influences you do have to live with some imperfections in and out of your control. Would you like to help in telling these qualified tech admins how to find some problems in ways they might not know of?

At the risk of going further off-topic, how would it kill it? The topic starters of this type of topic often ask for it to be closed because it's off topic. So.. by splitting the off topic into its own alive open thread, the original discussion can stay open longer? This sort of problem has come up before and will do so again, so it's probably good to get an answer on this.

Or a mod could move the off-topic comments to a new thread.

Well you did get some protein. Remember to flex your back out backwards.

The user-voices have been fairly successful, because they cut out most of the bullshit about 'sides'. There's still some things that get argued over, things that belong on the forum as a contentious discussion rather than a widely supported fresh idea.

One key part is who decides what is negative. The original point of this topic is a perfect example of that. I don't want a rule where someone can mess with the admins by saying 'I didn't say it negatively'. The real world, say English law, has "the test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law#Reasonable_force Replace jury with single banning mod, and appeal with head admin.

There are a few obvious collusions, there's a ban appeal where several people posted the same sort of thing within two minutes. Other than that I don't think it's seen as a constant conspiracy. I don't see all the toxic people as clones of each other, even when they are being toxic they have variations. I also remember the majority of the times when they are reasonable, talking about something else. It's just for simplicity. Football fans only spend 1% of their time in a football stadium. Also I don't think it's assumed that everyone who agrees with any one toxic person is a bad influence in that agreement, until they they do something bad. Some of what you say is done by the toxic people who see me and the admins as the same identity (so said one).

"Keep talk on differences between people to a level that everyone finds comfortable, whether or not they know you or sense the seriousness of your conversation." There's a lot of ways to word it. But sometimes you just find people who don't see the logic one millimetre past the written word. You could say Do not to others as you would have done to you, but some people have a thick skin that shuts out empathy. Maybe the rules for 99% of the players can be simpler if the 1% are removed entirely. Slippery slope and all, which I think could apply to nearly every player-wanted change to administration.

It's never been about protecting the children, it's a topic almost never wanted by the subject. I guess the informal rule is something like 'Chat on this area about a specific person, by name or inference, is only permitted with their permission'. You could still get some immature player saying "Oh but we were talking about Luke Perry in Family Guy", but that's true for nearly every rule. The cheating and the husband parts, regardless of the pronoun, sound like doxxing. Would anyone have complained if the ban reason was doxxing?

I do what I can, and it's a lot easier face to face, to not have that assumption. I'm told my efforts work. In the same way that people in charge are usually in control of their biases, I believe they are at least more likely to be in control/aware of their assumptions. I ask Eehee that question because, per random chance if nothing else, I want to get him spotting his own assumptions. Assumptions like "a no longer relevant/already resolved issue".

Is it possible that when you feel you'll get nowhere or that who you're talking to will say no you act up because you don't see any point in trying to be nice to help your cause?